SANJEEV KAPOOR versus CHANDANA KAPOOR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 663 · Decided: 19-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
663
SANJEEV KAPOOR
v.
CHANDANA KAPOOR & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.362 – Court not to alter
judgment – In the instant case, the Family Court disposed of the
maintenance petition under s.125 CrPC filed by respondent-wife
directing appellant-husband to pay monthly maintenance and the
parties to the dispute to file petition for divorce by mutual consent –
Husband paid the maintenance for four months only – Respondent-
wife filed execution petition for enforcement of the order for payment
of maintenance – Family Court rejected the execution petition
holding that the order of maintenance was purely conditional and
was subject to the fulfillment of respective obligations by the parties
which they did not perform and, therefore, application under
s.125(3) was not maintainable – Wife filed application for recalling
the order passed in s.125 petition – Family Court restored the s.125
petition – Husband challenged the same by filing s.482 petition –
High Court rejected the s.482 petition – On appeal, held: The
Magistrate does not become functus officio after passing an order
under s.125 – The section clearly contemplates that the Magistrate
may have to exercise jurisdiction from time to time – The order passed
in instant case by Family Court reviving the maintenance application
of the wife under s.125 by setting aside order passed on settlement
is not hit by the embargo contained in s.362 – Plea of husband that
s.362 prohibited the Magistrate to restore the maintenance
application was not tenable – High Court did not commit an error
in rejecting the application under s.482 – The inherent powers of
the High Court given under s.482 are to be exercised to secure the
ends of justice – Family Court did substantial justice in reviving the
maintenance application of the wife – High Court erred in interfering
in exercise of its jurisdiction under s.482 Cr.P.C. – Family law –
Maintenance – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – s.369.
663
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 663
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Legislative Scheme as delineated by Section
369 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as well as Legislative
Scheme as delineated by Section 362 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is one and the same. The embargo put on the
criminal court to alter or review its judgment is with a purpose
and object. The criminal justice delivery system does not cloth
criminal court with power to alter or review the judgment or final
order disposing the case except to correct the clerical or
arithmetical error. After the judgment delivered by a criminal
Court or passing final order disposing the case, the Court becomes
functus officio and any mistake or glaring omission is left to be
corrected only by appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Section 362 Cr.P.C. begins with the word “save as otherwise
provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in
force”. The above expression clearly means that rigour as
contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is relaxed in following two
conditions: - i) Save as otherwise provided by the Code of Criminal
Procedure. ii) any other law for the time being in force. [Paras
18, 20][672-B-F]
2. The closer look of Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself indicates
that the Court after passing judgment or final order in the
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not become functus
officio. The Section itself contains express provisions where order
passed thereunder can be cancelled or altered which is noticeable
from Section 125(1), Section 125(5) and Section 127 of Cr.P.C. In
Section 125 Cr.P.C., the expression used is “as the Magistrate
from time to time direct”. The use of expression ‘from time to
time’ has purpose and meaning. It clearly contemplates that with
regard to order passed under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C., the
Magistrate may have to exercise jurisdiction from time to time.
By Section 125(5) Cr.P.C., Magistrate is expressly empowered
to cancel an order passed under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. on
fulfilment of certain conditions. Section 127 Cr.P.C. also discloses
the legislative intendment where the Magistrate is empowered
to alter an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Section 127(2)
Cr.P.C. also empower the Magistrate to cancel or vary an order
under Section 125. The Legislative Scheme as delineated by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
665
Sections 125 and 127 C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.